Germany

 This weekend's German election has some lessons for our political context. Der Speigel sees a new German political pattern emerging from this:

After Sunday's election, Germany's political landscape has been shaken up, perhaps for ever. Angela Merkel's conservatives will be able to form a coalition government with the business-friendly FDP, but the balance of power between the two parties has fundamentally shifted. And the once-powerful Social Democrats may never recover from their defeat.

Chancellor Angela Merkel has probably saved her chancellorship -- but the price that her conservatives will have to pay for it is high. The election result for the center-right Christian Democratic Union (CDU) and its Bavarian sister party, the Christian Social Union (CSU), is lower than in 2005. Nevertheless, she can form a coalition government with the business-friendly Free Democratic Party because support for the FDP has increased in a way that until recently pollsters would scarcely have thought possible.

Just as in the European elections, we are seeing a splinter of the political scene. On the left, the far left gained, the Greens gain, the centrist-left collapsed, the center-right shrunk slightly, and the liberal party gained massively. The right (center-right + liberals) has grown, but not hugely.

Several things to take away from this in the time of an economic downturn:

First, the appeal of libertarian positions has grown. Even in Europe and Germany there has been an anti-government, anti-entitlement, pro-reform movement that is growing massively. We see this here in the tea party movement.

The response to the economic crisis has been more freedom and less government. Somehow government is getting the blame, at the ballot box, for the downturn.

Second, the center-left has lost credibility, but the numbers on the left are still large if you include the far-left. It is hard to imagine a victory of the German left without the Left Party, but it is also questionable whether this turns off swing voters between the center-right and center-left. Some on the American left will try to learn the lesson that they need to move to the left -- isn't that always the lesson? -- but one wonders if, like the SPD, the Democrats would suffer from highlighting their relationship with the far-left.

All in all, we are in a situation in which right-leaning parties are sweeping elections or performing at historic highs. These things happen in response to global events. It will be interesting to see if this pattern continues into the next year. 

Last Sunday in "A Landmark: the Moment of Infamy we reported on an outrage in Duisburg, Germany in which the police - in order to deescalate a explosive situation with a raving pro Hamas crowd - broke in and entered the private premises of a Israeli sympathizer in order to remove two 'offensive' Israeli flags (see the post for video footage of the event).

Occurrences that like cross the ethics Rubicon in that police officers, servants of the state (i.e. of all of us), are seen bowing to an angry, intolerant mob.

Israel Matzav today has further information on the case and states that the incident has rightly upset a lot of people in Germany; this may not be the end of it. We sincerely hope so.

The mob is now known to have consisted of members of the Turkish Nationalistic/Islamist organization Milli Görüs (caption: logo/flag), here described as a wolf in sheep's clothing for activities other than folk dancing. Whatever aim they pursue, it prevents Turks from assimilating in Western societies and as such, is a hazard. The incident is evidence of the organization's true character and the inroads it has managed to make on the psyche of the German authorities.

The tolerance the West is showing for the intolerant is temporarily culminating in unbridled antisemitism not seen here since World War II. The Duisburg flag owner was brave enough to take a stance against it, but failed to find the servants of the law on his side to defend his rights and property.

Police spokespersons meanwhile have gone from defending their actions, to apologies (probably not even realizing why they are at fault - or am I too pessimistic here?).

The Social Democratic Party (SPD), whom for years have pushed the "multicultural" agenda like there's no tomorrow, now want a debate in the state's parliament about the outrage. Why?

Have they renounced multiculturalism as a pernicious ideology and do they no longer believe in the premise that all cultures are equally valid? Do they think Israel, a. has the right to defend itself, and b. has no option but to destroy a terrorist hell hole which brutally murders its own citizens, children included? I don't think so.

The party describes the essence of the matter as follows (read that carefully): "Why was the potential for danger during the protest so underestimated that police were forced into a situation in which they had to concede to the demands of violent (protesters) rather than (protect) the right to the freedom of speech of others?"

Israel Matsav's blogger Carl rephrases that as follows: "Actually, the central question is why police conceded to the demands of violent protesters rather than protecting the freedom of speech of others (...) If Europe wants to save itself from the Islamic onslaught, it had better learn the difference between those two questions."

The problem as usual is the relativist default position which is killing Western culture and debilitates the ability to defend against hostile self-realizationists.

The irony is, that while relativists see any absolutism as the epitome of evil (full stop), the Postmodern dialectic translates that into "any absolutism emanating from evil Western culture, 'oppressed' minorities" exempted.

As long as that is the default morality propagated by intellectuals, the media and officials, the West is careering headlong into the abyss of cultural suicide.

The default position should be: Western laws and values prevail in this country and hence on we have a zero-tolerance policy with regard to any form of intolerance. Objectivity is key, no more compensating minorities for perceived inequalities. Any form of apartheid is unacceptable.

If that doesn't change - rapidly - we're doomed, doomed ...

- Filed on Articles in "In Defense of Liberty"

John Rosenthal has got a worthy piece of prose up on Pajamas Media that makes the skin crawl. "German Publishing’s Man in the White House" tells of Obama's ties to Germany's Bertelsmann Publishing and a massive conflict of interest yet to be fully disclosed.

There's the fact that the emporium happens to be the President Elect’s principal source of income, but even worse, perhaps hard to imagine in this day and age - or sadly, not any more - the Bertelsmann conglomerate does not belong to the vein of Teutons, who in a less politically correct time, were referred to as 'good Germans'.

Consider: the Bertelsmann Foundation and Corporation are two perfectly intertwined entities, both in effect, emanations of the Mohn family. Rosenthal:

"It might be considered irrelevant today that Bertelsmann massively collaborated with the Nazi regime during World War II. (For more on this, see “Bill Clinton’s German Paymasters.”) But it is surely not irrelevant that when German researcher Hersch Fischler first brought this fact to light, the family proposed to have the matter further investigated by one Dirk Bavendamm. Bavendamm is the family’s “in-house” historian, having written no fewer than three commissioned histories of the Mohn family and the Bertelsmann Corporation.

As so happens, he is also an open revisionist, who calls World War II “Roosevelt’s War” and suggests — à la contemporary 9/11 conspiracy theorists writing on George W. Bush — that Franklin Delano Roosevelt intentionally permitted the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor to occur. Bavendamm has even written a book on the subject with the curious title Roosevelt’s War 1937-45 and the Puzzle of Pearl Harbor [Roosevelts Krieg 1937-45 und das Rätsel von Pearl Harbor].

“With the events of December 7-8, 1941 [i.e., the attack on Pearl Harbor], Roosevelt … had achieved his most important aims,” Bavendamm has written in an essay on the subject [German link], “America’s entry into the War occurred with the enthusiastic consent of the overwhelming majority of the American people — … Roosevelt had finally convinced them that it was their sacred duty, guns in hand to defend freedom, democracy, and prosperity around the world.” (For more on Bavendamm, see Hersch Fischler and John Friedman’s “Bertelsmann’s Revisionist” here.)

The theory that the Pearl Harbor attack was a set-up is, incidentally, standard neo-Nazi fare. Interestingly enough, in his infamous “God Damn America!” sermon, Obama’s longtime pastor Jeremiah Wright invokes precisely this theory as apparently well-established fact: “The government lied about Pearl Harbor too,” he says. “They knew the Japanese were going to attack. Governments lie.”

The Obama team and the Mohns would undoubtedly say that it is scandalous to suggest that the Mohns were using their millions to influence the American presidency or that Obama could possibly be corrupted. (...) >>>

Be that is may, the Ayn Rand/Stephen Hicks school of philosophy never misses target. Mutual attraction apart, follow the irrationals, follow the collectivists, follow America hatred, and sooner or later one ends up in places where bodies have been piling up, eventual good intentions notwithstanding.

This just in an hour ago:  FOX NEWS POLL - No Bounce for Obama From Overseas Trip...

The significant news coverage Barack Obama is receiving on his foreign trip has not translated into a bounce in his numbers, a just-released FOX News poll shows. Obama now holds the slimmest possible edge over John McCain, leading by just 41 percent - 40 percent in a head-to-head contest. In fact, Obama’s support is down slightly from his 45 percent - 41 percent advantage last month.

Opinion Dynamics Corp. conducted the national telephone poll of 900 registered voters for FOX News from July 22 to July 23. During that time Obama was traveling in Jordan, Israel and Palestinian territories. In the days before the poll was taken Obama had been touring Afghanistan and Iraq. The poll has a 3-point error margin.

Among independents, Obama has a narrow 2 percentage point edge: 34 percent to McCain’s 32 percent, and 34 percent undecided.

McCain has more strength of support from his party faithful. Fully 86 percent of Republicans back McCain compared to 75 percent of Democrats that back Obama.

The crowd cheered when Obama talked about bringing the Iraq war to a close. And he called on Europeans to join in the fight against global warming, AIDS and human rights abuses in Africa and Asia.

“People of Berlin, people of the world, this is our moment. This is our time,” he said.

Earlier, he sought to limit comparisons to famous speeches that Presidents John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan made in Berlin during the Cold War.

“They were presidents, I am a citizen,” he told reporters ahead of the speech, claiming the event was not a political rally.

John McCain, meanwhile, visited a German restaurant in Columbus, Ohio, where he poked fun at Obama.

Heh.

From the Fox News Poll PDF for 22-23 Jul 08

If the 2008 presidential election were held today, would you vote for:

1. Democrat Barack Obama
2. Republican John McCain
3. Independent Ralph Nader
4. Libertarian Bob Barr
5. (Other)
6. (Don’t know)
7. (Would not vote)

 Obama   McCain      Nader      Barr        (Other)      (DK)      (Not vote)
  40%         37%            2%         -            1%       17%         2%

I like 2% for Nader.  Wasn't that the gap between Ford and Jimmy Carter? 

Obama?  Oh, blah blah.  Yawn.  Whatever. 

Pass me those brats and that Berliner Kindl Weisse, bitte? 

This is pretty extraordinary. A candidate for the American Presidency is using flyers printed in German to turn people out for his campaign rally in Berlin on Thursday. This flyer can be found on a bilingual page on BarackObama.com advertising the event:

The German flyers bear Obama's campaign logo and say "Paid for by Obama for America."

I'm surprised at this lapse in judgment in an otherwise well-oiled and professional Obama campaign. The last time they printed up campaign paraphenalia in a foreign language, it didn't work out so hot for them.

So, this isn't just some sober, high-minded foreign policy speech, part of a foreign trip occurring under the auspices of his official Senate office. It is a campaign rally occuring on foreign soil. They are using the same tactics to turn out Germans to an event as they would to any rally right here in America. This after Obama's campaign said this:

“It is not going to be a political speech,” said a senior foreign policy adviser, who spoke to reporters on background. “When the president of the United States goes and gives a speech, it is not a political speech or a political rally.

“But he is not president of the United States,” a reporter reminded the adviser.

The sea of Germans drummed up by the Obama campaign will be used as props to tell us Americans how to vote, and the campaign isn't trying to pretend otherwise. That's breathtakingly arrogant, and par for the course for Barack Obama.